In the Star Trek movies and books, cadets at Starfleet academy take the Kobayashi Maru test. The test is a simulation where the cadet captains a ship tasked with the rescue of a stranded ship's crew, the Kobayashi Maru. Before the cadet can carry out the rescue they are beset with several Klingon war birds. No course of action the cadet chooses can save the crew of the stranded ship. Almost inevitably, the simulation ends in the destruction of the cadet's ship and the death of all aboard as well as the crew of the Kobayashi Maru. The test is designed to see if the cadets can maintain their composure while in command of the doomed rescue mission, intended to teach a cadet how to deal with a no-win scenario.

The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship. It dooms the Kobayashi Maru, though, which btw may or may not be a trap set by the Klingons.

Iraq was possibly the worst place on the planet to attempt to create a democracy.

Jesus - if there was ever a "No schitt, Sherlock" statement, this is it.

Iraq lacks any of the preconditions academics generally accept as being necessary for democratization to succeed. It has no middle class to speak of independent from the state; oil revenues, the life-line of any Iraqi regime, are notorious for their ability to centralize rather than democratize power; the country has no tradition of limited or responsible government; national identity is weak in the face of rival religious or ethnic loyalties; regional neighbors will do what they can to undermine whatever democratizing movements exist; and the democrats themselves lack a figure such as Nelson Mandela or Kim Dae Jung who could give them leadership.

It did, however, have a military that the US's could easily defeat, a regime the US could easily topple, and oil. That made it a great place to deflect the nation's attention to a military victory that promised financial benefits to the nation. And it made it the perfect place to throw a war that would launder large sums of money through no-bid contractors and oil interests into the coffers of the powerful.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat:dittybopper: The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship.

I've often wondered what happens to cadets who choose this course of action. From a game theory perspective, that would seem to be the least bad choice.

I thought I remembered that the Klingons would attack regardless of the violation of the neutral zone, but I am apparently wrong about that. Wikipedia mentions that Sulu took that action though, although not what the response was.

In the Star Trek movies and books, cadets at Starfleet academy take the Kobayashi Maru test. The test is a simulation where the cadet captains a ship tasked with the rescue of a stranded ship's crew, the Kobayashi Maru. Before the cadet can carry out the rescue they are beset with several Klingon war birds. No course of action the cadet chooses can save the crew of the stranded ship. Almost inevitably, the simulation ends in the destruction of the cadet's ship and the death of all aboard as well as the crew of the Kobayashi Maru. The test is designed to see if the cadets can maintain their composure while in command of the doomed rescue mission, intended to teach a cadet how to deal with a no-win scenario.

The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship. It dooms the Kobayashi Maru, though, which btw may or may not be a trap set by the Klingons.

I'm so confused. Apparently, I don't understand it either. What is the proper understanding of the Kobayashi Maru?

What Iraq really needs is a strong, charismatic leader who could bring the different factions together and convince them to work together for the greater good. Maybe a guy who's willing to take a hit to his own reputation in order to appear as a strong leader.

Hell, perhaps even someone who could say "If you act up, you will face my wrath." Wonder where we could find someone like that?

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat:dittybopper: The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship.

I've often wondered what happens to cadets who choose this course of action. From a game theory perspective, that would seem to be the least bad choice.

Yah but imagine the scenario was scripted by the descendants of Bethesda or Bioware/EA, you choices would be:A) Approach the neutral zone at half speed.B) Approach the neutral zone with shields down.C) Approach the neutral zone while flipping the bird to your own admiral.

/and then it'd crash after you made any selection after displaying a contorted klingon with its head up its own butt for a few seconds.

In the Star Trek movies and books, cadets at Starfleet academy take the Kobayashi Maru test. The test is a simulation where the cadet captains a ship tasked with the rescue of a stranded ship's crew, the Kobayashi Maru. Before the cadet can carry out the rescue they are beset with several Klingon war birds. No course of action the cadet chooses can save the crew of the stranded ship. Almost inevitably, the simulation ends in the destruction of the cadet's ship and the death of all aboard as well as the crew of the Kobayashi Maru. The test is designed to see if the cadets can maintain their composure while in command of the doomed rescue mission, intended to teach a cadet how to deal with a no-win scenario.

The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship. It dooms the Kobayashi Maru, though, which btw may or may not be a trap set by the Klingons.

I'm so confused. Apparently, I don't understand it either. What is the proper understanding of the Kobayashi Maru?

IMO it's a test of personality and character, allowing the higher-ups to gauge your tendencies and capabilities as a commander, not a pass/fail test.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat:dittybopper: The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship.

I've often wondered what happens to cadets who choose this course of action. From a game theory perspective, that would seem to be the least bad choice.

But at that point of the scenario, you don't know that the warbirds are there. So you saying fark it and not violating the neutral zone would be dooming the crew of the other ship just because you didn't want to break a rule.

In the Star Trek movies and books, cadets at Starfleet academy take the Kobayashi Maru test. The test is a simulation where the cadet captains a ship tasked with the rescue of a stranded ship's crew, the Kobayashi Maru. Before the cadet can carry out the rescue they are beset with several Klingon war birds. No course of action the cadet chooses can save the crew of the stranded ship. Almost inevitably, the simulation ends in the destruction of the cadet's ship and the death of all aboard as well as the crew of the Kobayashi Maru. The test is designed to see if the cadets can maintain their composure while in command of the doomed rescue mission, intended to teach a cadet how to deal with a no-win scenario.

The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship. It dooms the Kobayashi Maru, though, which btw may or may not be a trap set by the Klingons.

I'm so confused. Apparently, I don't understand it either. What is the proper understanding of the Kobayashi Maru?

IMO it's a test of personality and character, allowing the higher-ups to gauge your tendencies and capabilities as a commander, not a pass/fail test.

That's my understanding and it appears to be the article writer's undertanding, as well.

Describing it as "a no-win scenario designed to inform superiors of the cadet's reaction to stress and loss" seems like a pretty good understanding. If not spot-on, certainly good enough for the rest of the article.

Aar1012:Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: dittybopper: The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship.

I've often wondered what happens to cadets who choose this course of action. From a game theory perspective, that would seem to be the least bad choice.

There was a Starflert Academy game in the 1990s and the last test involved the Kobayashi Maru. The test just begins as 'Take this shipment to a star base' and goes from there.

It is possible to just finish the test but the admiral scolds you for not doing the humane thing

--| SPOILER! |--

Hacking the simulation to make the Klingon captain in the enemy armada recognize you as a friendly from a prior encounter in the simulator, and subsequently let you go, was how you won without reprimand... I assumed at the time this cheat was allowed by the admiral because it taught that building good relations out there could have unforeseen benefit in the future.

The FMV in that game was excellent, with decent to good acting (at least as far as Star Trek is concerned). The graphics of the rest of the game, ehh not so much. Flying around with weapons that had to manually target like in a dogfight was also very un-Star Trek, but I guess a VR battlespace and targeting system like EVE Online uses would have been too much for typical desktop machines of the day.

In the Star Trek movies and books, cadets at Starfleet academy take the Kobayashi Maru test. The test is a simulation where the cadet captains a ship tasked with the rescue of a stranded ship's crew, the Kobayashi Maru. Before the cadet can carry out the rescue they are beset with several Klingon war birds. No course of action the cadet chooses can save the crew of the stranded ship. Almost inevitably, the simulation ends in the destruction of the cadet's ship and the death of all aboard as well as the crew of the Kobayashi Maru. The test is designed to see if the cadets can maintain their composure while in command of the doomed rescue mission, intended to teach a cadet how to deal with a no-win scenario.

The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship. It dooms the Kobayashi Maru, though, which btw may or may not be a trap set by the Klingons.

I'm so confused. Apparently, I don't understand it either. What is the proper understanding of the Kobayashi Maru?

IMO it's a test of personality and character, allowing the higher-ups to gauge your tendencies and capabilities as a commander, not a pass/fail test.

Because there is no success or failure. The Kobayashi Maru is in distress and is going to explode. There is imminent risk of death to someone, either the people on that ship (which could be a ruse by the Klingons, employed to coerce a treaty violation by the Federation), or the people on your ship in crossing the neutral zone to rescue the Maru, and in doing so directly antagonize and give rationalization to the Klingons to open fire on your vessel.

There are no wins here, there's either a Pyrric victory if you're somehow able to get the ship out safely and in doing so sacrifice yourself, the fool's errand and you both go down, the "by the book" outcome where you don't cross at all, or the bear trap if there was no ship there to begin with, and it was all an elaborate ruse. How you react to, manage, and choose betwee these eventualities isn't something that necessarily can be taught, it has to be observed in as real of a simulation as possible.

SirDigbyChickenCaesar:Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: dittybopper: The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship.

I've often wondered what happens to cadets who choose this course of action. From a game theory perspective, that would seem to be the least bad choice.

But at that point of the scenario, you don't know that the warbirds are there. So you saying fark it and not violating the neutral zone would be dooming the crew of the other ship just because you didn't want to break a rule.

Remember, though, that you are responsible for your ship, *AND* the hundreds of lives aboard it.

Consider this: You are the commander of a US Navy destroyer. You get a distress call from a freighter saying they've struck a mine and are rapidly sinking. Their location is within the territorial waters of, say, North Korea.

Do you go and rescue them, or do you think to yourself "Self, if I go into those waters, I'm likely to be attacked by the aircraft, surface ships, and submarines of the DPRK, and in fact, this may very well be a trap set to do just that".

As I recall, in ST2TWOK, it's almost implied that the Kobayashi Maru doesn't even exist in the scenario: When Saavik enters the neutral zone, the signal immediately disappears, and the Klingons simultaneously appear, giving all the appearance of a trap set to lure the unsuspecting starship.

Perhaps the real purpose behind the Kobayashi Maru scenario is to let the admiralty know which captains are likely to hazard their vessels unnecessarily, or indeed to serve as a warning to those who might fall for such a trap to think twice before acting.

dittybopper:As I recall, in ST2TWOK, it's almost implied that the Kobayashi Maru doesn't even exist in the scenario: When Saavik enters the neutral zone, the signal immediately disappears, and the Klingons simultaneously appear, giving all the appearance of a trap set to lure the unsuspecting starship.

Pretty much.

Kirk states in the book that the Kobayshi Maru does indeed exist, but he was REALLY surprised that it did when he got to her location.

/It is not stated that the ship exists in all instances of the test, only the one time Kirk made it to the 'Maru did she actually exist.

Seraphym:Aar1012: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: dittybopper: The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship.

I've often wondered what happens to cadets who choose this course of action. From a game theory perspective, that would seem to be the least bad choice.

There was a Starflert Academy game in the 1990s and the last test involved the Kobayashi Maru. The test just begins as 'Take this shipment to a star base' and goes from there.

It is possible to just finish the test but the admiral scolds you for not doing the humane thing

--| SPOILER! |--

Hacking the simulation to make the Klingon captain in the enemy armada recognize you as a friendly from a prior encounter in the simulator, and subsequently let you go, was how you won without reprimand... I assumed at the time this cheat was allowed by the admiral because it taught that building good relations out there could have unforeseen benefit in the future.

The FMV in that game was excellent, with decent to good acting (at least as far as Star Trek is concerned). The graphics of the rest of the game, ehh not so much. Flying around with weapons that had to manually target like in a dogfight was also very un-Star Trek, but I guess a VR battlespace and targeting system like EVE Online uses would have been too much for typical desktop machines of the day.

Ahh, here it is. I'd actually forgotten they actually had Shatner and Koenig in the filmed sequences playing their characters!

SphericalTime:Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: dittybopper: The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship.

I've often wondered what happens to cadets who choose this course of action. From a game theory perspective, that would seem to be the least bad choice.

I thought I remembered that the Klingons would attack regardless of the violation of the neutral zone, but I am apparently wrong about that. Wikipedia mentions that Sulu took that action though, although not what the response was.

Au contraire. He's the person you wanted to be: one who was less arrogant and undisciplined in his youth, one who was less like me... The Jean-Luc Picard *you* wanted to be, the one who did *not* fight the Nausicaan, had quite a different career from the one you remember. That Picard never had a brush with death, never came face to face with his own mortality, never realized how fragile life is or how important each moment must be. So his life never came into focus. He drifted through much of his career, with no plan or agenda, going from one assignment to the next, never seizing the opportunities that presented themselves. He never led the away team on Milika III to save the Ambassador; or take charge of the Stargazer's bridge when its captain was killed. And no one ever offered him a command. He learned to play it safe - and he never, ever, got noticed by anyone.

Describing it as "a no-win scenario designed to inform superiors of the cadet's reaction to stress and loss" seems like a pretty good understanding. If not spot-on, certainly good enough for the rest of the article.

Almost inevitably, the simulation ends in the destruction of the cadet's ship and the death of all aboard as well as the crew of the Kobayashi Maru.

Except that, as another film so eloquently puts it, "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play", ie., to not try to rescue the Kobayashi Maru. That's the optimum solution, as it results in the fewest number of deaths.

And that *IS* an option, which TFA doesn't point out. Their understanding of it is based solely upon the idea that the captain *HAS* to try to rescue the ship. But they don't.

Gonz:What Iraq really needs is a strong, charismatic leader who could bring the different factions together and convince them to work together for the greater good. Maybe a guy who's willing to take a hit to his own reputation in order to appear as a strong leader.

Hell, perhaps even someone who could say "If you act up, you will face my wrath." Wonder where we could find someone like that?

My Iraqi friend would say, "Back then we could always point to Saddam as ultimate evil. Once he was removed, we all became Saddam." Also, that at one point his tribe and another tribe were negotiating in an enterprise that would benefit both tribes. When both tribes couldn't come to an agreement where they would both benefit, he knew that they were doomed in general.

dittybopper:SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: dittybopper: The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship.

I've often wondered what happens to cadets who choose this course of action. From a game theory perspective, that would seem to be the least bad choice.

But at that point of the scenario, you don't know that the warbirds are there. So you saying fark it and not violating the neutral zone would be dooming the crew of the other ship just because you didn't want to break a rule.

Remember, though, that you are responsible for your ship, *AND* the hundreds of lives aboard it.

Consider this: You are the commander of a US Navy destroyer. You get a distress call from a freighter saying they've struck a mine and are rapidly sinking. Their location is within the territorial waters of, say, North Korea.

Do you go and rescue them, or do you think to yourself "Self, if I go into those waters, I'm likely to be attacked by the aircraft, surface ships, and submarines of the DPRK, and in fact, this may very well be a trap set to do just that".

As I recall, in ST2TWOK, it's almost implied that the Kobayashi Maru doesn't even exist in the scenario: When Saavik enters the neutral zone, the signal immediately disappears, and the Klingons simultaneously appear, giving all the appearance of a trap set to lure the unsuspecting starship.

Perhaps the real purpose behind the Kobayashi Maru scenario is to let the admiralty know which captains are likely to hazard their vessels unnecessarily, or indeed to serve as a warning to those who might fall for such a trap to think twice before acting.

dittybopper:As I recall, in ST2TWOK, it's almost implied that the Kobayashi Maru doesn't even exist in the scenario: When Saavik enters the neutral zone, the signal immediately disappears, and the Klingons simultaneously appear, giving all the appearance of a trap set to lure the unsuspecting starship.

Perhaps the real purpose behind the Kobayashi Maru scenario is to let the admiralty know which captains are likely to hazard their vessels unnecessarily, or indeed to serve as a warning to those who might fall for such a trap to think twice before acting.

Are you saying a cadet should be applauded for allowing a ship to kill its passengers because he or she doesn't want to risk his or her own crew? There is never anything wrong with helping a ship in distress, no matter where it is.

Describing it as "a no-win scenario designed to inform superiors of the cadet's reaction to stress and loss" seems like a pretty good understanding. If not spot-on, certainly good enough for the rest of the article.

Almost inevitably, the simulation ends in the destruction of the cadet's ship and the death of all aboard as well as the crew of the Kobayashi Maru.

Except that, as another film so eloquently puts it, "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play", ie., to not try to rescue the Kobayashi Maru. That's the optimum solution, as it results in the fewest number of deaths.

And that *IS* an option, which TFA doesn't point out. Their understanding of it is based solely upon the idea that the captain *HAS* to try to rescue the ship. But they don't.

Not playing the game isn't a winning move. It's just the least bad of all of the bad possibilities. I agree with the writers that there are no "winning" outcomes.

Tobin_Lam:dittybopper: As I recall, in ST2TWOK, it's almost implied that the Kobayashi Maru doesn't even exist in the scenario: When Saavik enters the neutral zone, the signal immediately disappears, and the Klingons simultaneously appear, giving all the appearance of a trap set to lure the unsuspecting starship.

Perhaps the real purpose behind the Kobayashi Maru scenario is to let the admiralty know which captains are likely to hazard their vessels unnecessarily, or indeed to serve as a warning to those who might fall for such a trap to think twice before acting.

Are you saying a cadet should be applauded for allowing a ship to kill its passengers because he or she doesn't want to risk his or her own crew? There is never anything wrong with helping a ship in distress, no matter where it is.

Unless, of course, it's a farkin' trap, which is a distinct possibility that you don't seem to grasp here.

Also, you're just plain *WRONG*: For example, the Coast Guard, which is specifically *TASKED* with search and rescue, won't attempt a rescue if the conditions are such that it's likely that the ship, boat, or aircraft used in the rescue will come to grief itself. That's part of their risk management, understanding when the risks being taken are worth it, and when they aren't. They are of course biased towards rescue if possible, as that's part of their mission, but they aren't under an obligation to attempt it no matter what.

In the Star Trek movies and books, cadets at Starfleet academy take the Kobayashi Maru test. The test is a simulation where the cadet captains a ship tasked with the rescue of a stranded ship's crew, the Kobayashi Maru. Before the cadet can carry out the rescue they are beset with several Klingon war birds. No course of action the cadet chooses can save the crew of the stranded ship. Almost inevitably, the simulation ends in the destruction of the cadet's ship and the death of all aboard as well as the crew of the Kobayashi Maru. The test is designed to see if the cadets can maintain their composure while in command of the doomed rescue mission, intended to teach a cadet how to deal with a no-win scenario.

The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship. It dooms the Kobayashi Maru, though, which btw may or may not be a trap set by the Klingons.

Yea, but that's for pussies and I'm sure you're never promoted beyond holodeck jiz mopper 2nd class if you do that. d

dittybopper:Unless, of course, it's a farkin' trap, which is a distinct possibility that you don't seem to grasp here.

You're right. Nothing screams "TRAP" like a stranded vessel. Recue is always risky and it is okay to decline a rescue if the risk is too great. However, rescuing a lone stranded vessel in the Neutral zone is not too risky for the cadet's ship. That's what the Klingons are counting on. Obviously, we know the ship isn't alone but that knowledge is not part of the scenario. The scenario as related to the cadet is "Rescue the stranded ship", not "Rescue the stranded ship that is surrounded by numerous cloaked Klingon ships."

Seraphym:Aar1012: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: dittybopper: The cadet can also chose not to violate the Neutral Zone, and therefore not destroy his own ship.

I've often wondered what happens to cadets who choose this course of action. From a game theory perspective, that would seem to be the least bad choice.

There was a Starflert Academy game in the 1990s and the last test involved the Kobayashi Maru. The test just begins as 'Take this shipment to a star base' and goes from there.

It is possible to just finish the test but the admiral scolds you for not doing the humane thing

--| SPOILER! |--

Hacking the simulation to make the Klingon captain in the enemy armada recognize you as a friendly from a prior encounter in the simulator, and subsequently let you go, was how you won without reprimand... I assumed at the time this cheat was allowed by the admiral because it taught that building good relations out there could have unforeseen benefit in the future.

The FMV in that game was excellent, with decent to good acting (at least as far as Star Trek is concerned). The graphics of the rest of the game, ehh not so much. Flying around with weapons that had to manually target like in a dogfight was also very un-Star Trek, but I guess a VR battlespace and targeting system like EVE Online uses would have been too much for typical desktop machines of the day.

dittybopper:Tobin_Lam: dittybopper: As I recall, in ST2TWOK, it's almost implied that the Kobayashi Maru doesn't even exist in the scenario: When Saavik enters the neutral zone, the signal immediately disappears, and the Klingons simultaneously appear, giving all the appearance of a trap set to lure the unsuspecting starship.

Perhaps the real purpose behind the Kobayashi Maru scenario is to let the admiralty know which captains are likely to hazard their vessels unnecessarily, or indeed to serve as a warning to those who might fall for such a trap to think twice before acting.

Are you saying a cadet should be applauded for allowing a ship to kill its passengers because he or she doesn't want to risk his or her own crew? There is never anything wrong with helping a ship in distress, no matter where it is.

Unless, of course, it's a farkin' trap, which is a distinct possibility that you don't seem to grasp here.

Also, you're just plain *WRONG*: For example, the Coast Guard, which is specifically *TASKED* with search and rescue, won't attempt a rescue if the conditions are such that it's likely that the ship, boat, or aircraft used in the rescue will come to grief itself. That's part of their risk management, understanding when the risks being taken are worth it, and when they aren't. They are of course biased towards rescue if possible, as that's part of their mission, but they aren't under an obligation to attempt it no matter what.

As an EMT in New Jersey, priority on any call is our individual safety first, then that of our crew, the equipment that we've brought with us, and finally the patients. Yes we're here to help, but not if scene safety is such that we're putting ourselves in unacceptable danger.

I agree that the cadet's ship should wait outside of the Neutral Zone and contact Starfleet for instructions. Are there stipulations in the treaty with the Klingons that allows for sending secondary craft such as shuttles instead of careening in with your Constitution-class cruiser? There's so many fun permutations you can brainstorm for how to handle the Kobayashi Maru, such as launching probes at the site ahead of your ship to inspect the crippled ship and attempt to detect a trap.

Eventually, wouldn't the Kobayashi Maru test become so well known that all the upcoming cadets will have heard about it through the grapevine and will be prepared to give the simulator what they think it wants?